A moving target: The Army's story

Friday, January 28, 2005

The news may have come as a shock to some people in Anniston, but it shouldn't have.

The Army's pronouncement that it is studying whether to move chemical weapons across state lines to be destroyed is contrary to what it said it would do when building an incinerator in Anniston. But it's not the first time the Army has gone back on its word.

The Army sold the incinerator with assurances that chemical experts from Fort McClellan would be there if the worst happened. But before the incinerator was finished, the Army closed McClellan.

Of course, it also promised that the citizens of Anniston would get all necessary protection. Then came that embarrassing episode in which the Army assured Anniston residents they'd be safe in a chemical leak if they stayed home and breathed through wet rags. Ultimately, the Army conceded, that might not be safe.

Now, the Army - which once said that safety required the on-site destruction of the country's eight chemical weapons stockpiles - is thinking maybe not.

While current law would prohibit the transportation of the chemical weapons across state lines, the Army acknowledges it is considering the idea. "We're running a `what if' drill," said Jeff Lindblad, a spokesman for the Army in Aberdeen, Md.

The acknowledgment came after a leaked memo mentioned the possibility of transporting weapons between sites and as the Army announced it was cutting funds for neutralization operations at some sites, including Kentucky.

Why should we care? Because Alabama is the site closest to Kentucky, and it could be seen as the most logical place to destroy more than 100,000 weapons now stockpiled in the Bluegrass State.

The Army says it's only studying the idea in its efforts to meet a 2012 deadline to destroy the chemical weapons as required under an international treaty. But transporting the weapons generates a whole host of new safety concerns, from traffic accidents to terrorism.

At a more fundamental level, the Army's "what-if" exercise is troubling because it flies in the face of earlier assurances given to the people of Anniston.

This is an issue of safety and public trust. Unfortunately, trying to pin the Army down to the truth too often has been like hitting a moving target.




A moving target: The Army's story Friday, January 28, 2005 The news may have come as a shock to some people in Anniston, but it shouldn't have. The Army's pronouncement that it is studying whether to move chemical weapons across state lines to be destroyed is contrary to what it said it would do when building an incinerator in Anniston. But it's not the first time the Army has gone back on its word. The Army sold the incinerator with assurances that chemical experts from Fort McClellan would be there if the worst happened. But before the incinerator was finished, the Army closed McClellan. Of course, it also promised that the citizens of Anniston would get all necessary protection. Then came that embarrassing episode in which the Army assured Anniston residents they'd be safe in a chemical leak if they stayed home and breathed through wet rags. Ultimately, the Army conceded, that might not be safe. Now, the Army - which once said that safety required the on-site destruction of the country's eight chemical weapons stockpiles - is thinking maybe not. While current law would prohibit the transportation of the chemical weapons across state lines, the Army acknowledges it is considering the idea. "We're running a `what if' drill," said Jeff Lindblad, a spokesman for the Army in Aberdeen, Md. The acknowledgment came after a leaked memo mentioned the possibility of transporting weapons between sites and as the Army announced it was cutting funds for neutralization operations at some sites, including Kentucky. Why should we care? Because Alabama is the site closest to Kentucky, and it could be seen as the most logical place to destroy more than 100,000 weapons now stockpiled in the Bluegrass State. The Army says it's only studying the idea in its efforts to meet a 2012 deadline to destroy the chemical weapons as required under an international treaty. But transporting the weapons generates a whole host of new safety concerns, from traffic accidents to terrorism. At a more fundamental level, the Army's "what-if" exercise is troubling because it flies in the face of earlier assurances given to the people of Anniston. This is an issue of safety and public trust. Unfortunately, trying to pin the Army down to the truth too often has been like hitting a moving target.